Man vs. Machine

By
11.18.2003 :: 9:36AM EST

Man vs. Machine. Garry Kasparov vs. X3D Fritz. Another chess game of the ages, or at least for today.

Kasparov, the World Chess Champion, is playing a computer going by the name of X3D Fritz in a series of games, with the finale today starting at 1:00 P.M. EST. The series is currently tied, with a draw in the first game, the PC winning the second, and the human winning the third.

The match is being televised on ESPN2, with play by play announcers and the whole ball of wax. The two losses for each contestant were the result of what most experts declare questionable moves (even though X3D Fritz can calculate four million moves per second).

This is far from the first time a human champion has taken on a computer. After numerous other matches of Man vs. Machine, in 1997 Kasparov was defeated by IBM's computer called Big Blue. Since then other champions have taken on computers, with mixed results.

Chess is a fantastic way to measure human versus machine. There are so many options, so many strategies. Sure, a machine can calculate odds and moves, but can it fake an opponent out and strategize?

Also, as we all know, the computer is only as good as those who program it. Four million moves per second don't mean anything if they are gibberish, and they certainly don't mean anything if they are playing right into a trap.

Today we will find out who is better, man or machine, at strategy … at least for today.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

USER COMMENTS 45 comment(s)

w00t(9:48am EST Tue Nov 18 2003)first, post, but other than that, go kasperov he is amazing at chess.

i cant even beat the computer when i play chesmaster 3000, lol.– by alex

What's all the fuss?(9:59am EST Tue Nov 18 2003)Computer only as smart as whoever create all the moves. Certainly it can't think, it can't fake it opponents. – by ~@#%$*&^

STUPID!!!!(10:18am EST Tue Nov 18 2003)The whole “man vs machine” concept wrapped up in a chess game is about the most rediculous thing one can conjour up. THINK ABOUT IT.

Lets have a man vs competition for who can come up with definition of a word fastest, or a man vs laser speedometer for who can judge the speed of a moving car more accurately, or how about the man vs screw driver to see who can turn the screw faster.

STUPID STUPID STUPID

Its a machine. It can out perform a human.

People are trying to extrapolate these stupid chess matches to pretend that the computer is somehow THINKING. ITS NOT. ITS A DATA BASE — JUST LIKE GOOGLE. – by Go play with Google.

Man vs. Machine(10:28am EST Tue Nov 18 2003)The “next” species, to replace humans, are the machines, but humans are so arrogants that they aren't conscious of that trend. Humans believe themselves unique and superior. The “human” is already defined (= limited), but “machine” is all posibilities, machines can only get better and better.

– by Human

beg to differ…(10:41am EST Tue Nov 18 2003)Man can improve too.

Why else would we have world records continually being beat?

I think you're selling yourself short, Human – by Frosty

RE: Human(10:42am EST Tue Nov 18 2003)Your not smart enough to know what the machines are up too. – by The AI

punie human grey matter(11:08am EST Tue Nov 18 2003)programmers can create programs that can do things quicker and better than they can do them selves, thats why we write it.

kasperov's a great player and is hanging on to human dignanty, but with the right coding not nessasarialy written by a grand master a computer can beat any human every time without fail.

– by Dddd

Actually(11:17am EST Tue Nov 18 2003)It is still man vs. man.

It was man the created the chess programm, and filled it up with all the rules of chess, the machine just churns out x number of calculations a second, all of them defined by man.

A.I. is just a large switch statement, but man has to fill in the cases. – by Topher

But that's the thing… it isnt a database(11:18am EST Tue Nov 18 2003)d00d, It isn't a database because if it were, the computer would ALWAYS have the best move for each board layout and would ALWAYS win.So what is it? The computer does the same thing a human player does. It looks at the board, assumes a move and attempts to figure out as many subsequent moves as possible. It then makes the move that had the best outcome.And next you will say, “Well, Steve, that changes nothing. There is still no point of these sorts of competitions.” And to that I must shake my head because you can't think outside the box. First, there is always something pleasing hearing Kasparov whine like a bitch about how unfair it is. But besides that, there are important benefits for these matches. Computer learning? Again I hear the cries “Machines cannot think damn you! Thus they cannot learn.” What a fallacious statement. What else can learning be that improving from failures and mistakes? So if a computer has a metaprogram that will tweak its method of processing and choosing plays based on the outcome of prior matches, that has to be considered learning. It is not different in function to what we do as people.Second, it actually teaches us something about the nature of chess. As we archive boards and scenerios, we can figure out if chess is a broken game. That is, if white always plays first and white always makes the best possible move for the given board layout. Is it a game like tic-tac-toe where the first player to move cannot lose if he playes in this manner? What if black also plays a perfect game? Is black at an advantage or are they always on the run and just doing everything they can to prevent the loss? It's these sorts of questions that competitions like this can begin to help us answer. (This time I'll try to stick around if there is any debate. Sorry about that last time.) – by SDB

Topher(11:27am EST Tue Nov 18 2003)Ok, so by your argument, horse racing is a sport of man vs. man. Because afterall, men decided which horses to breed to get their thuroughbreds. They feed, clean, and train the horses. They jokey the horses. Really the horses are just placeholders or symbols for the culmination of man's work. The ability of the horse has nothing to do with the sport, and they play no active role in the competition because their existence is the byproduct of human decisions on breeding. And just like that sounds wrong, so does your prior post. – by SDB

RE:Go play with Google(11:50am EST Tue Nov 18 2003)“Its a machine. It can out perform a human.”

Oh, so this machine dropped out of a mother machine, right? She sent him off to school and now he is building his career? Who built the friggin' thing, jacka*ss? It is only as smart as the one that wrote the code and screwed the screws in. – by Jesse_Jackson

No brainer…..(12:39pm EST Tue Nov 18 2003)I thought we settled all of this man vs. machine argument when the present govenor of Califoorneeea (ha ha) was in the Terminator movies…. – by I'll B Back

Although(12:48pm EST Tue Nov 18 2003)The computer might make a faster move than Kasparov, it doesn't mean it's *smarter*. I agree with someone here who said that the program is as smart as the people who programmed it. Undoubtly it is a very sophisticated program, but Kasparov has the flexibility to *bend* or *break* the rules, in which the computer is based on, while the machine cannot, so all it takes for Kasparov is one move which the programmers who programmed the machine didn't expect and it's all over. The dumb, lifeless programmed piece of metal with fans and a processor will crash and burn. The good part? The machine doesn't know what happened to it, and that's a good thing, otherwise I'd fear for Kasparov's life. – by WD

RE: Human(1:16pm EST Tue Nov 18 2003)human != limited

That's the most absurd idea I've ever heard. Do you understand all the workings of the mind? How monks disipline themselves? Etc… There is so much to human kind that is unknown… it's almost scary in itself.

Why don't you go home and think about it… and if you come to the conclusion that it's 'stupid' then you've failed and should start again.

(that oughta keep him busy for the rest of his life) :P – by Ghandi

firts move(1:22pm EST Tue Nov 18 2003)d2-d4 d7-d5

Hope Kasparov will win! – by BxN88

…(1:28pm EST Tue Nov 18 2003)Attention all:The ability to calculate doesn't make you sentient! I can show a computer a picture of an elephant, and it can give me the dimensions of that elephant in an atto-second, BUT it can't tell me what the picture is.It can't distinguish an elephant from a moose, cat, or any other animal.

We use computers everyday because they help us shore up our weeknesses. Would you use your TI-83 if your mind calculated with equal ease?

So why is everyone so obsessed with these bogus competitions? Doesn't the fact that Kasparov was defeated by Blue Gene itself tell us Chess is nothing more than a game of calculations?

Machines are superior in memory, and speed. Everyone agrees with this, so why is everyone so suprised when a human loses to a machine in a game that, in essence, is nothing more than a huge math puzzle?